Politicians and the 1% Preparing for Social Unrest

"Governments are, primarily, in the business of hampering competition in favor of the already-established and powerful 'capitalists' (in quotes because capitalism actually requires competition to work), whose money buys political favors and favorable legislation."

Comments

It's time to start judging the failure of "Free" Market Capitalism with the same honesty as we judge the failure of Socialism/Communism: WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get.)

The people saying "but PURE® Capitalism actually requires...." sound just like the people saying "but TRUE™ Communism actually requires...."

Both Capitalism and Communism have now failed, both because of internal contradictions, even though their True Believers think it's because they were implemented wrong or corrupted by economic-sinners.

As you can see from the list at the above link, the freest economies are the richest places in the world and you'll find they are generally the best places to live. On the other hand the last holdouts for communism are the poorest countries and the worst places in the world to live.

That's excellent evidence that freer capitalism will lead to even better results.

What, exactly, is "free" about Hong Kong or the USA or Europe? All are highly regulated societies with little freedom. Their wealth is gained by being aggressive players. Communism works even less well than capitalism, but the difference between the two political variations of city-Statism is between that of different prisons. Some prisons are preferable, yes. But they're still prisons.

No agricultural city-State allows a Non-State society lifestyle. Marx and Mises both agreed on that.

For all their faults, the economies so the countries at the top of the list are the most free in the world, allowing individuals the greatest latitude in disposing of their property, relative to other countries. More economic freedom will lead to even greater wealth. Freedom clearly works.

From the evidence, one could just as easily conclude: "Strict Asian Lockdown culture clearly works." Or, "Empire clearly works." Or, "Economic Hitmen clearly work." Or, kowtowing to the only State in history to use Nuclear Weapons works."

Every one of those countries relies on massive amounts of violence to regulate and govern its society's massive amounts of rules.

If they do have more freedom, it is only incremental, as one may have more freedom in one prison over another. Yes, some prisons are preferable over others; one would rather live in the Singapore city-State rather than in Pyongyang. Eglin Federal Prison Camp (Club Fed) is more free than San Quentin.

But prisons are still prisons. Prisons are designed to restrict freedom. And the Agricultural city-State (civilization) is designed specifically to restrict freedom.

Civilization violently invades and occupies Non-State societies and stops them from living in Non-State ways of living, i.e., foraging. The extreme aggression of civilization is documented throughout history.

"From the evidence, one could just as easily conclude: "Strict Asian Lockdown culture clearly works." Or, "Empire clearly works." Or, "Economic Hitmen clearly work." Or, kowtowing to the only State in history to use Nuclear Weapons works."

No, the economies with the most free economies are all near the top of the list and the ones with the least free economies are at the bottom.

The point is not that the states at the top of the list are free (they're not in any absolute sense), the point is that the more free market capitalism you have access to the better of you are and the more communism you have the worse off you are. It couldn't be more clear.

The point is that your market capitalism relies on heavy doses of aggression, just as socialism or communism relies on heavy doses of violence. Market capitalism isn't free. Agricultural city-States (civilization,) no matter the political flavor, are brutally aggressive.

And you're in denial. Probably can't even recognize it, because you're so inured to the constant threat of State violence to protect "rights." Market capitalism is a city-Statist prison, just as is communism, that starves people into working. Both are literally a trail of tears.

"Our system of private property in land forces landless men to work for others; to work in factories, stores, and offices, whether they like it or not...Disestablishment from land, like slavery, is a form of duress. The white man, where slavery cannot be practiced, has found that he must first disestablish the savages from their land before he can force them to work steadily for him. Once they are disestablished, they are in effect starved into working for him and into working as he directs."

"You’ll know you’re among the people of your culture if the food is all owned, if it’s all under lock and key. But food was once no more owned than the air or the sunshine are owned. No other culture in history has ever put food under lock and key—and putting it there is the cornerstone of your economy, because if the food wasn’t under lock and key, who would work?...As long as the food remains under lock and key, the prison runs itself. The governing that you see is the prisoners governing themselves. They’re allowed to do that and live as they please within the prison."

"Market capitalism isn't free. Agricultural city-States (civilization,) no matter the political flavor, are brutally aggressive. And you're in denial. Probably can't even recognize it, because you're so inured to the constant threat of State violence to protect "rights.""

Nonsense, I am fully aware of state aggression which is why I'm a market anarchist.

The voluntary city (or the voluntary state/government) hasn't happened, because they are contradictory.

We haven't seen it. We won't see it.

It has exactly the same chance of happening in the future -- zero -- as a benevolent communist mass society that successfully "withers away" the "state" aspect of the agricultural city-State (civilization.)

As the anthropologist Stanley Diamond writes in the first sentence of his book In Search of the Primitive: A Critique of Civilization (1974,) "Civilization originates in conquest abroad and repression at home."

A preponderance of archeological, anthropological, historical, and current empirical evidence supports his opening line.

Conjuring a voluntary city-State (civilization,) is like summoning an animated corpse. A non-State civilization (city-state) is as much a possibility as a Zombie. Both Communism and Libertarianism are Zombie religio-economic faiths, about as realistic as the other Zombie Savior.

Myself, I'd rather strike at the root of our human crisis, and that root isn't merely the State, but the indivisibly integrated cultural package of agricultural city-State (civilization) itself.

I don't settle for make-believe.

I want to live in a real, proven, Non-State sociopolitical typology that was successful for hundreds of thousands of years before being aggressively annihilated by the coercive agricultural city-Statists.

I don't see you making any case for the logical impossibility of this, you only argue that it hasn't happened. You've been given other examples of things that hadn't happened in human history and then happened. You seem to feel no need to address this.

"Myself, I'd rather strike at the root of our human crisis, and that root isn't merely the State, but the indivisibly integrated cultural package of agricultural city-State (civilization) itself."

So, if you don't mind my asking a few questions, does this mean that you live the life of a hunter-gatherer? Are you a member of a tribe? And, do you use any "civilized tools" for hunting and/or gathering?

I also wrote to give you my thanks, because of you, I was led to this.

"In Indigenous societies, we are told that Natural Law is the highest law, higher than the laws made by nations, states, municipalities and the world bank. That one would do well to live in accordance with Natural Law, with those of our Mother [the Earth]." ~ Winona LaDuke, of the Mississippi Band of the Anishinaabe of the White Earth Reservation, Minnesota

No, nobody but a few survivors in the most marginal of land can live as a Non-State band or tribal gatherer/horticulturalist. The agricultural city-State is brutally invasive and occupational, and the occupation continues.

I ask every day: Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest?

Each day the answer is the same from the whole political spectrum—capitalism to communism—of the agricultural city-Statists: No!

So the best I can do, for now, while inside the prison of civilization, is to unschool and rewild and survive the inescapable prison sentence of city-Statism.

So, my non-judgmental conclusion is, because you believe that "city-Statism" is an "inescapable prison sentence", you do, out of 'absolute necessity', of course, apparently "settle for make-believe".

Based upon your reply, and because your self-made persona is "WhiteIndian", a few more questions now arise.

Why did you change my "hunter-gatherer" to "gather/horticulturalist[1]"? Why not, as the vast majority of The People [Red Indians] once were, a "hunter-gatherer"? Are you a vegetarian or vegan? And, were not, and are not, horticulturists, i.e. "One[s] who [are] skilled in the art of cultivating gardens[2]," directly involved in the creation of your, seemingly, much hated "agricultural city-States"?
____________________________________________________________________________

The very definition—derived from empirical evidence—of the city-State (civilization) includes State level organization. It is as contradictory to have a civilization without State as it is to have jet aircraft without jets.

The libertarian priestcraft and true believers must evade overwhelming empirical evidence—anthropology (especially the Original Affluent Society,) archeology, history, ethnology, game theory (especially the Prisoner's Dilemma,) evolutionary biology (especially Dunbar's Number and Biological Egalitarianism)—to claim it feasible to conjure a city-State without a State.

An animated corpse is just as "possible" as a voluntary city; here will be no Zombie Savior. Libertarian economic theory is as much a false hope as the Rapture.

If either were credible, I'd be a believer. We all seek to be somehow saved from the absolute catastrophe the agricultural city-State has made of Mother Earth and the lives of her many children.

Simply show me a city-lized society with large permanent settlements of 5000+ which does not have State level politics.

Hint: there are none.

It takes deliberate evasion of volumes of empirical evidence to gainsay the observation that agricultural-City-State (civilization) is an integrated cultural package.

Not only is in clearly observable, we know why it developed and how, supported by multiple fields of study, including biological evolution, neurobiology, archeology, anthropology, ethnology, sociology, and history.

Ayn Rand said to "check your premises." She should have taken her own advice; she was completely wrong on so much.

But we've gained much empirical data in the last several decades about our long past, and it is even more culturally controversial than the theory of biological evolution, and for much the same reason; that is, the literal creationist myth and the "nasty-brutish-short" Hobbesian mythology— city-Statist apologetics—are proven false.

Author Daniel Quinn calls it the "Great Remembering."

If you're interested in freedom, it's time to do some inductive thinking from empirical evidence instead of deductive logic from faulty premises.

Voluntary city-Statism (civilization) is about as likely as noiseless jets or animating a corpse, and there are clear reasons that neither can happen.

A voluntary city might be a wonderful thing, but then noiseless jets or a Rising Savior would be wonderful things too, only if they were realistically possible.

Some of your hope is based on your desire for freedom. I stand with you on that. And I compliment you on your being one of the few people in our culture to actually recognize the inherent violence of the city-Statist system, and speak out against it.

But much of your hope for a voluntary civilization is based on false premises.

The foremost false premise is the completely disproven Hobbesian mythology of "savages" (literally, dwellers of the silva, or forest.) All of the libertarian writers, including Rand, accept this distorted city-Statist apologetics that encourage submission to the agricultural-city-Statist system because of unwarranted fear of wilderness.

The more accurate outlook of tribal Non-city-State life, based on empirical data, is "The Original Affluent Society."

There are two ways for a person to obtain what they want (and, obviously, need): work for it or take it. Trade is a sub-set of working for it because you need to have something to trade with first. The work for it method (economic means) creates the conditions and incentives for people to cooperate with each other on a voluntary basis. The take it method (political means) institutionalizes violence as its organizing principle. Civilization arises when a society creates the conditions necessary for that society to prosper. Historically, societies have been created by the first method and then commandeered by the second method. This does not mean that a society must always be consumed by a state, only that people who promote violence have thus far been able to enslave people who promote peace in the long run. Although most people prefer peace to violence, many still live in fear of violent people. Thus they succumb to strongmen-states as a demonstrable way to deal with perceived threats (often phantom threats); they sell their liberty for the false promise of security. As long as a majority of men remain cowards too afraid to take responsibility for their lives, the state will continue to enslave them.

Those whom seek a peaceful society only need to empower enough men with the courage to stand on their own two feet to leave the violent state model of organizing society and be truly free. This is not a false hope because society would have never developed beyond a pack of animals without the human desire for peace with neighbors. Society evolving to the next level has taken a long time, but it will occur eventually. The internet reformation gives me hope that the people who wish to live together in peaceful cooperation will be able to defend themselves from the inherently corrupt, violent and immoral people who promote the state. It should be obvious to anybody who has "studied anthropology, archeology, history, ethnology, game theory and evolutionary biology" that the struggle for civilization has always been between those that take responsibility for their own lives seeking peaceful cooperation and those that want to take what they want with violence (includes voting).

Are you not presenting false quotes? At least I cannot find where Mark Davis, or anyone else on this page, used either of these two phrases, "work hard to produce" or "steal by political means".

Dolphins, squirrels, crows do not "produce", in the sense of creating, (other than their "nests"), but they certainly must "work hard" at surviving. And, although they apparently do not use "political means", at least some of them do, in fact, "steal"; they steal each others "kill" or "gatherings", just as some of the, so-called, American Indians did.

I put it in quotes because what's in quotes is the gist of the false choice he presented as most people in this culture. But if you're offended by the quotes, then I'll apologize for them and consider them removed. OK?

Do you call sex "work?" No? Why not? How about a stroll through the woods? No? Technically, in the physics sense it is work. Right? So quit playing word games.

What is commonly called "work" is "working for the man" so you can make money so you can pay the rent-seekers just to eat and have shelter.

So no, dolphins don't have to "go to work." Neither did humans in the Original Affluent Society.

In fact, anthropologists have observed that hunter-gatherers only "work" (actively hunting or gathering) an average of 2 hours per day. But they also note that it isn't really "work" and the people don't view it as "work." It's play. "Play" or even "party atmosphere" is how anthropologists describe daily life in a Non-State tribal society.

Even Thomas Paine noted in his Agrarian Justice pamphlet that "The Life of an Indian is a continual holiday."

Huge difference from Office Space.

And please, if you're going to parrot how "nasty and brutish" paleolithic life was, admit you're just repeating the city-Statist Hobbesian mythology, which most city-Statist Libertarians (including Rand) also purport as true. Archeology and anthropology have turned Hobbesian fallacy on its head.

Regarding violence: there was indeed violence, but it was less. For paleolithic people, it was something that happened occasionally. For city-Statists, it's a nearly daily way of life. We know from archeological evidence when it increased too - domestication and agriculture. A couple of the essays I reference above address violence extensively, and cite scholarly literature.

"The life of an Indian is a continual holiday, compared with the poor of Europe; and, on the other hand it appears to be abject when compared to the rich.*

*(We should not, IMO, take lightly the fact that Thomas wrote "is" regarding the poor, and "appears to be" regarding the rich", for that which "appears to be", not always, "is" what it appears to be.)

Civilization, therefore, or that which is so called, has operated two ways: to make one part of society more affluent, and the other more wretched, than would have been the lot of either in a natural state.

It is always possible to go from the natural to the civilized state, but it is never possible to go from the civilized to the natural state. The reason is that man in a natural state, subsisting by hunting, requires ten times the quantity of land to range over to procure himself sustenance, than would support him in a civilized state, where the earth is cultivated.

When, therefore, a country becomes populous by the additional aids of cultivation, art and science, there is a necessity of preserving things in that state; because without it there cannot be sustenance for more, perhaps, than a tenth part of its inhabitants." ~ Excerpted from Agrarian Justice, by Thomas Paine